Talk:Intellectual disability

Grammar issues

Run-on sentence in the "IQ Below 70" section:

Factors other than cognitive ability (depression, anxiety, etc.) can contribute to low IQ scores, it is important for the evaluator to rule them out prior to concluding that measured IQ is "significantly below average".

Taking into account its context, I have edited the sentence to a)fix the run-on issue; b)remove redundancy; and c)clarify that the sentence is about disparities between IQ scores and actual intelligence, not IQ scores and "measured IQ" (which are the same thing!). Here is my version:

It is important that the evaluator rule out factors other than cognitive ability—such as depression, anxiety, etc.—prior to concluding that a low IQ test score indicates "significantly below average" intelligence.

An article about the words without mentioning the subject.

Based on a Google Search, here is what I came here looking to find:

What are expectations of adults with IQ levels below 70, 60, and such. What are testable factors other than IQ which can effect the ability to learn, function independently, hold a job, and generally participate in society and at what level or participation.

Also, I was hoping to find some leads to a discussion on the relative perceptions of "average" by persons with exceptional and gifted/genius intelligence. That is, do not most persons tend to see themselves as average and assume that others are like them? How might that false assumption manifest itself in the interpersonal relations of the very bright?

Instead, I read about the term, and how it has been used pejoratively. Anyone who has finished first grade already knows that.

Y'all need to get a grip on what you are doing here. Are you debating terms, or creating articles? This is the FIFTH article I have read which is so afraid of the subject that it fails to provide ANY relevant information, apologizing for itself in paragraph after paragraph.

I am not qualified to write this article, and it seems, neither are any of you. But here is a start:

Somewhere, once, in the article, we say, "Terms related to 'retardation' have often been used as insults, such as stupid, moron, idiot, imbecile, and so on; however, such terms have, historically, held clinical meanings." And see? You are done with all of that fussing.

Now that you are free to move on, please write an article on the subject for adults and not an essay on "it is bad to call people names."--cregil (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it would be productive to add more information about some of the issues you suggest, especially "ability to learn, function independently, hold a job, and generally participate in society and at what level or participation". I disagree that the article is "an essay on 'it is bad to call people names.'" The pejorative nature of the terminology through the years has been one of the very factors that impedes progress in some of the areas you mention.

I was fine with your suggestions until I got to your comment "Y'all need to get a grip on what you are doing here" and the remainder of your rant. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; it is the encyclopedia that is written entirely by unpaid editors. It's easy to passively criticize as you do, while hiding behind the excuse "I am not qualified to write this article." Much of Wikipedia is written by nonexperts; and if the information they add is inaccurate in some way, then the experts are free to challenge and improve it. If you can read and have a bit of motivation, you can improve Wikipedia. You've been on Wikipedia over two years. So my suggestion to YOU is start reading and improving the article by adding (not removing) rather than spend your time criticizing those of us who already devote some of our time to this project. Cresix (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Like Well said Cresix! Lova Falk talk 18:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Crews, if you haven't already seen Dunning–Kruger effect and the related articles, then that might lead you to information about misperceptions of ourselves compared to others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

DSM-5

"Mental retardation" has a new name: "intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.85.234 (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree strongly with changing the title of this article to intellectual disability (while acknowledging that it is still called mental retardation by some).The debate has been not so much what the name is, but what it specifically refers to. See for example this article from 2011: it points out that the debate began 15 years before the time of writing that article published in 2011, and had long been settled in favor of retiring the term "mental retardation" in developed countries and is underway in the LAMI world too. Ongoing debate is what does intellectual disability actually mean, and that would be happening regardless of what it's called. Once "retard" became a term of abuse, as "moron" had earlier, especially when it is not even good terminology, this was going to happen. The MeSH term to which the article links is "intellectual disability" - some uses of the term have yet to be replaced, but this is only a question of time now. You can't search in PubMed for mental retardation alone, because it has been so thoroughly retired, and this isn't just symbolic. Of course for the US, this is affected by Rosa's Law, which does not allow Federal use of the term. But it is a measure of strength of concern about the "retard" word that this term is actually legislated against. I'm not American, and so wouldn't say, US law should determine how anyone else sees it, but "retard" is far too disrespectful a term to cling to when the profession and the society is trying to pull past it. It cannot survive as acceptable terminology now. So the only question is, how soon do you do it? This is the same as where you would place yourself on the continuum when Mongoloid needed to go, or GRID needed to become AIDS, or moron or spastic for cerebral palsy needed to go. Hildabast (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What to call this article

Intellectual disability seems have greater support including MeSH [1] and DSM5. This article also states "Although “intellectual disability” has widely replaced the term “mental retardation”" [2] Thus based on these sources feel we should consider using the more current term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Support

• Support as proposer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Hildabast (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support, per above. Stigma is a real concern. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support as there are a number of sources that document the recent change in terminology, including but not limited to DSM-5. Note that there is already an article on Wikipedia Intellectual disability and thus there is a tricky issue here of merging two articles each with a long edit history. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Mental retardation and Intellectual disability (our articles) should not be merged. They are (by design) separate topics. If you want to place this article at the other title, then you need to come up with a new title for the other content. Someone once suggested Intellectual deficit (and changed the wording here to match that). Another option might be to use a descriptive title like Disabilities affecting intelligence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea disabilities affecting intelligence, but it's a little inaccurate when it's a disease affecting it, not a disability. Deficit is problematic for a range of reasons, too. Another option might be to focus the other article more specifically on non-developmental (acquired?) intellectual disability. Attempting to make it an umbrella term might be too hard. And since World Psychiatry Association, APA (DSM-5), NIH (NICHD) and ICD are identifying the developmental aspect so clearly, making that the differentiation principle between the articles too might mean that the WP articles helped make the differences in the way these groups are defining things easier to understand. Hildabast (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of the other article is that it is broad enough to give an overview of all the major categories of medical issues that cause intellectual problems. I've got no objections to having an article about Non-developmental intellectual problems or whatever you'd like to call that, but that would be a third article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The statement "They are (by design) separate topics" by an experienced Wikipedian leaves me asking for more information about what content is expected to be in each article. What I see in the sources is a shift in terminology, so that anything that used to be called "mental retardation" is now called "intellectual disability." In that case, if there are still to be two articles, what titles would distinguish one from the other? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The other article is supposed to include a short summary of each of the large classes of medical conditions that impair intellectual function. At minimum, it includes both limited intellectual function due to developmental problems ("MR"), due to trauma ("TBI"), due to dementia, plus specific learning disabilities (to contrast with the others, which are all general learning disabilities). It should probably include conditions like Cretinism due to iodine deficiency, and the section on brain injury should include more about intellectual dysfunction due to stroke and oxygen deprivation. I don't know whether it should include temporary or semi-intellectual conditions like chemo brain or the effects of sleep deprivation or menopause on memory or word recall. Those don't feel like they fit as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

We have to change this article's title to fit current terminology. Returning to the discussion begun a while ago, everyone seems basically to agree on what this article is about, and what has happened around us in the external world is that the official medical terminology has changed, most recently with the publication of DSM-5 in May 2013, so that now this article plainly should be named "Intellectual disability." The existence of a previous Wikipedia article with that name complicates the usual process of "moving" (renaming) this article to preserve the article history and the talk page history. Furthermore, the editors involved haven't necessarily been agreeing about the division of labor among the articles "Mental retardation," "Intellectual disability," and "Cognitive deficit," and a WHOLE BUNCH of wikilinks on other related articles will have to be changed to link subarticles to the correct main articles. It's a tough job, but we've got to do it, to up to date with reliable sources for medicine-related articles. I'm going to check a reliable medical source for current terminology related to the topics of the "other" articles closely related to this one, and we have to think carefully about setting up redirects and making the necessary renaming of this article go as smoothly as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The ICD is still using the old name and won't be updated for a couple of years, so I don't think that we "have to" change to fit the current terminology in one major source right this minute. That said, I agree that we do have some serious preparation work that can be usefully done as soon as anyone wants to do it. Perhaps the existing ID article should be moved to a descriptive title, like Disability affecting the intellectual ability. I believe several alternatives along that line have been proposed on the associated talk pages, and probably some of them sound better than this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion that changing one article's title before the other may be helpful, as I agree it would be. I'll hunt in a source I have for at title already used as a summary title for those kinds of disorders. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion at Talk:Intellectual_disability#It.27s_time_to_discuss_the_scope_of_this_article_with_sources_at_hand., prompted by recent edits to Intellectual disability. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No merge was done. The content which was before at Intellectual disability was moved elsewere. And thus nothing was at this title so moved here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A merge should been done here. Right now you have; Intellectual disability and Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities (?) - thewolfchild 22:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's because they are different subjects.

One of the subjects growing up with an IQ < 70 plus not being adaptable. That used to be called "mental retardation" and is now called "intellectual disability".

The other subject is all the things that hurt a person's intellectual abilities, including—but not limited to—the particular condition of growing up with an IQ < 70 plus not being adaptable. In addition to the condition of growing up with an IQ < 70 plus not being adaptable, the other article covers things like growing up just fine, but losing your intellectual abilities due to various forms of brain damage.

This wouldn't be so confusing to people if the sources had picked some less generic-sounding name for the condition that involves growing up with an IQ < 70 plus not being adaptable. If it's easier, intellectual disability is "your neighbor with Down syndrome". Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities is your neighbor with Down syndrome and your grandmother with Alzheimer's and the military veteran with traumatic brain injuries and your nephew with severe dyslexia and your co-worker who has memory problems due to chemotherapy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of all that. But they all come under ID. Anyone with a "disability affecting their intellectual ability" is intellectually disabled. You have multiple types listed in one article (with a somewhat silly title), and ID meanwhile has it's own page, but seeming only because a majority of the content discusses how it used to be called mental retardation.

I'd like to draw a comparison to another couple of articles here, if only to illustrate my point. There is a page titled Black people. There is not one single reference to the word 'n*gger', (or it's modern, politically correct alternate, the 'n-word'), even though that word to be in common and accepted usage. The same goes for African American page. There is only one mention of that word (other than a link at the bottom), and it is found within a very small sub-section called Terms no longer in use. Meanwhile, that word has it's own article to discuss the evolution of it's usage.

Why can't we have a similar arrangement here? We could;
- Leave all the non-medical content of the ID page, that discusses evolution of the term MR, and it's eschewed and diminishing use, and re-name the page something else. ("ID terminology" or "ID naminging conventions" or something along those lines...).
- Take the medical content from ID, add it to the ID section of the DAIA page, with a sub-section mentioning the use of MR, and a link to the former ID page (now renamed).
- Then rename the DAMA page as 'Intellectual disability'.

You would now have a medical article, with medical content. It allows the reader to read up on all types, and compare and contrast them. This would even help people that don't know the differences among ID caused by disease, trauma, genetics or others. Much like the 'n-word', people may want to read about the medical aspects about ID, without be subjected to a barrage of MR references, as part of an included, non-medical, history lesson. - thewolfchild 23:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone with a "disability affecting their intellectual ability" is intellectually disabled.

Sure, they're "intellectually disabled". But they do not all have "intellectual disability". ID is a specific, narrow "thing" now. Thanks to the efforts of various advocates, "intellectual disability" does not mean what the individual words mean any longer. It means a very specific set of three circumstances: low IQ, problems compensating for the low IQ, and the appearance of these qualities in "the developmental period". IMO the DSM folks should have adopted the far more sensible title of "Intellectual developmental disorder"—but they didn't ask me, they asked a bunch of people who frankly care far more about this subject that I do, and those people preferred the confusingly generic name that we're now stuck with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Differences

There is a major difference between mental retardation and learning disabilities. Learning disabilities deals with the ability to acquire knowledge, while mental retardation deals with the capacity to retain knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooltoye (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is so oversimplified that it is basically not true. The overall difference between LD and MR might be best understood from the older British names: MR is "general learning disability" and the other is "specific learning disability". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

As the long history of discussions here and elswhere have shown, the issues affect far more than just two articles. Given that two separate WikiProjects - Disability and Medicine - are involved in the various articles concerned (some of which still need to be identified) I propose that we create a Joint Task Force shared by Disability and Medicine WikiProjects. This Joint Task Force can, in a single venue, pull together all the issues and discussions that have been scattered all over various pages, to arrive at a satisfactory consensus. The Joint Task Force can be a permanent venue to discuss and resolve other isses of shared interest between the two WikiProjects. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

An interesting proposal. Although I think it wouldn't hurt to have a page listing issues on shared articles, I think the end result would be the same, which is pinging the two projects' talk pages to roster interest. LT90001 (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't merely be a list of articles/issues, it would be a Talk space to discuss and resolve the issues. Just "pinging the talk pages" of the separate projects leaves us where we are now - with discussions split up in multiple places - each one dominated by either the medical or disability pov depending on the venue instead of a shared common ground. It goes far wider than just this particular article/issue - for example the medical project's disdain for sources that are not "official medical journals" is a source of frustration to editors with a "disability pov" when the subject has social aspects outside of the narrow confines of the "medical pov". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, this article has a new title, and I will put my hand to gathering sources to begin improving it. Thanks for the thoughtful suggestions from several other editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Source for term "general learning disorder"?

I see the lede prominently mentions the term "general learning disorder," indeed mentioning that term more prominently now than "mental retardation." What is the source for this? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Special Education Support Service General Learning Disabilities.

I'm not sure why you deleted it half an hour ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see by further searching that that proposed term (yes, identified by the source formerly in the article as a reference) never took off. It's essentially absent from the more current literature. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be a British and Irish term, and it is in current use there. See PMID 23104965 and PMID 20501538 for two recent psychological journal articles that use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The various terminologies used in the UK such as "general learning disorder" have no specific definition more a politically based description, especially for each new government to make their mark. We are now more about discussing the specific clinical disabilities based on the current international research, which can improve the understanding of the various issues, so say in the case of dyslexia which is now not a condition but more a symptom of the various cogntive issues that can cause the dyslexic symptom. The real problem is money and politics which can sometimes prevent the real issues from being discussed, and sometimes how the cultures in different countries of the English speaking world prefer to address these issues. dolfrog (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is the article that used to be at this title?

I have lost track of the article that used to be at this title - the one that discusses the broader topic of intellectual disabilities in general. It had been moved several times yesterday and various redirects have been deleted so finding it's current title is difficult. There should be a hatnote link to it on this article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The article name was suddenly changed at the whim of an editor to Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities and moved, including a strange redirect. dolfrog (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Roger, the move was an attempt to build an article on a topic, defined by discussion on this talk page, which unfortunately does not appear as a topic with a customary title in the professional literature. Dolfrog has pointed to the new location of that article, Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities. The article title changes (for this article and for that article) result from a change of terminology in the real world, with "intellectual disability" now being by far the preferred term for what I grew up knowing as "mental retardation." I'm still checking sources to clear up the terminology in this and other related articles. See my Intelligence Citations source list for pointers to the current professional literature. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I do know the rationale and history of the move, I just needed the current title. As I said, various moves and the subsequent deletion of redirects unfortunately broke the trail so I couldn't find it. I think we should have a "See also" link at each page pointing to the other. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Roger. I was all fumble-fingers at the time and had problems with typos, followed by an idea for a slightly better(?) title.

BTW, I'd be happy to have you compare the article to Cognitive deficit. I'm thinking that they may be the same actual subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Mental retardation as a term

The article says that the term "Mental retardation" was used in the late 20th century. I hate to break it to folks, but that term, while considered politically incorrect by many, is still widely used. The way it is worded in the article implies that it isn't and that's unsupported and unverifiable. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A close reading of the article text shows that the article begins with the current term per the Wikipedia naming conventions for medicine-related articles, which specify "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources. . . . Create redirects to the article to help those searching with alternative names. For example, heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction." The article goes on to note that a commonly used term in the era when Wikipedia was founded (a former name for this article, and a redirect term) was "mental retardation." The article text does not say that use of the previous term has ceased, nor does the article lack cited, reliable sources that talk about the terminology change. There seems to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and of what the sources say here. The article helps readers by informing them what current medical terminology, preferred by researchers and by advocacy organizations both, is. That's all. There is no need for a tag about this, although I will move the references from the body text to the lede (not strictly necessary by Wikipedia editing rules) just to remove all doubt. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors are still gathering sources. I have lots of sources at hand. What sources do you recommend on this topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

As a follow-up, note that the first several references cited in this article are about the change of terminology during our lifetimes, with the publication of DSM-5 this year (2013) being an important milestone. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@Toddst1, Fortunately, you are wrong. "Mental Retardation" has some for quite some time now been eschewed in the disabled community because it has, and continues to be, used as a pejorative in society as a whole. The Global Down Syndrome Foundation describes the term as "...politically incorrect, hurtful and dehumanizing.". Several years ago, the US federal government passed Rosa's Law, banning the use of the term in all federal statutes., which has also had a trickle down effect on a great deal of official and non-official usage. An example of this change is seen on on government websites such as U.S. National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health, and other medical websites such as WebMD and Kids Health. Some major indicators of this change in usage is the change seen in the new DSM-5 and change in name of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities - which used to be called the "American Association on Mental Retardation". Using the word "retarded" is tantamount to using the "n-word", and as such, "mental retardation" is being used less and less (if at all) as a description of pathology and, concurrently it's use is only being supported and propagated by the woefully ignorant, the ardently disrespectful and pathetically bigoted. - thewolfchild 17:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone lives in the disabled community - in fact most don't. A huge chunk of the article and the lede is devoted to the evolution of terms and the new preferred term. To assert that it isn't used by people in general will be impossible to source/support because it's not true.[3] I get your point that it's not a nice term (as I mentioned in my OP) but this is an encyclopedia, not a platform for WP:ADVOCACY. In case you hadn't noticed, the article uses this term that you assert is no longer in use 46 times. Toddst1 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Not everyone lives in the disabled community - in fact most don't." - Agreed, but how is that relevant? Not everyone is part of the 'black community' either, but most of us know the n-word is inappropriate, and we don't use it in articles in reference black people.

"I believe you can and should get sources to say that there is a new preferred term." - I already have. Now, surely you agree with the point here, so why don't you pitch in an add some sources?

"To assert that it isn't used by people in general will be impossible to source/support because it's not true.[4]" - A video of one person making one comment does not constitute "people in general". In fact, is simply shows that Bachmann fits into the 'ignorant' category. Her comment was even publicly decried by her own campaign manager.

"I get your point that it's not a nice term (as I mentioned in my OP) but this is an encyclopedia, not a platform for WP:ADVOCACY." - How is it "unencyclopaedic" to use the more appropriate and acceptable term in place of a term that has been both publicly and legally censured? And just how does that make an article "a platform"? (Have you read Wikipedia:Advocacy?)

"In case you hadn't noticed, the article uses this term that you assert is no longer in use 46 times." - And that needs to change. - thewolfchild 19:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is: the term "is still widely used." Toddst1 (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And...? - thewolfchild 21:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"The way it is worded in the article implies that it isn't and that's unsupported and unverifiable." Are you incapable of reading the OP? Toddst1 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I read it. All I see is you contradicting yourself. The lead states that MR was "..commonly known in the late twentieth century...", which is was, as supported by you own comments. Are you now arguing it wasn't commonly used in the 20^th century? You made the comment it is still widely used now, in 21^th century, but I have shown, with multiple cites, that is changing. This is a medical term, and one of the leading institutions that defines such terminology, the APA, has changed it. The federal gov't has enacted a law changing it. More and more reputable sources are going with the new term, ID. And as such, (as I already pointed out) only ignorant and/or disrespectful people are using this term medically, while the majority use it pejoratively.

• Do you still use the term MR? If so, do you use it to describe someone with ID? Or do you use it as an insult?
• Do you believe that despite everything you have been told, that somehow WP still needs to use the term MR?

I would appreciate an answer to these questions at least, as you refused to answer the previous questions I asked. And lastly, in regards to your comment: "Are you incapable of reading the OP? "... I would ask in return; Are you capable of reading WP:CIVIL? - thewolfchild 11:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you: The term is still used. The way it's written says it isn't used any longer which is false. People wish it wasn't used (for all the right reasons) but stating that it isn't used is WP:Advocacy and not acceptable.

As far as civility, your ineloquent reply of "And...?" indicates you did not read the OP or are otherwise blinded to the meaning of the words. It's clear that you are here as an advocate for the disabled and are biased in you interactions. You are picking and choosing what you want to interpret in this discussion and frankly not being constructive.

Beyond that, sating that "Bachmann fits into the 'ignorant' category" violates WP:BLP and is not acceptable. You may disagree with her, (I do in almost every way) but Wikipedia is not a platform for you to make public attacks on people. Toddst1 (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, where to begin..., Let's start with my comment about Bachmann. And I want to be clear about this, so I will spell it out for you; I stand behind my comment 100%.
You have chosen to frame it as an insult, but it's merely an observation, with no insult intended. To me, when she made that comment, she used the MR term unknowingly and with no intent to insult people with ID. I believe that if she were aware of the preferred term of ID, she would have used it. Obviously, she was "ignorant" of that fact. Now, apparently you don't know what "ignorant" means, (one might say that you are 'ignorant' of the meaning), so I am going to help you out;

Merriam-Webster defines ignorant as;

ig·no·rant adjective \ˈig-n(ə-)rənt\
1. lacking knowledge or information
2. resulting from or showing a lack of knowledge

So, no insult was given and therefore, I will be dispensing with your ridiculous "warning" on my talk page, which you had no business posting in the first place, because you are just... wrong, - in sooo many ways. 1) You and I have interacted before. You, for some reason (I still don't know why) abruptly posted a personal attack on my talk page. If you recall, I advised you to "stay the hell off my talk page". 2) Now, you and I are here, in a content dispute, (where you have again the breached lines of civility). That makes you biased. 3)You're appalling disregard for policy is only exceeded by your shocking and willful abuse of your admin tools. You need to read WP:INVOLVED. Actually, while you're at it, should just go ahead and read the entire Wikipedia:Administrators page. Meanwhile, the next time you want to threaten me with a block, you find a neutral admin to do it.

Now, as for the topic at hand. You complain about my "And..." comment and quote WP:I Didn't Hear That? (Maybe you should read WP:IDHT as well, if you're gonna throw that one around.) My comment was a response to your rather blunt and evasive "The point is: the term "is still widely used." Go back and read my preceding comment to that. There was a good deal more there to respond to, which you chose to ignore. It seems all you want to do is battle, with your non-collegial, disruptive editing. (Yep, read that too)

If you don't like how the lead is written, then go get yourself some consensus, and change it, instead of complaining to me about it. (I didn't even write it) But, really, it's better the way it is. You say people still use the MR term... so what? The N-word used to be a commonly accepted word to describe blacks, and it's still used today. Why don't you go to the African American page, or to some BLP's on black people, and start adding the n-word to describe them? (Good luck with that) And when people start complaining, you can use the same argument you have "spelled" out here; "The term is still used...".

For me, I've just about enough abuse from you, so I will not be discussing this, with you, any further. - thewolfchild 19:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You are very mistaken. No administrative action has been taken by me. If you want to make accusations of administrative abuse, put up on WP:ANI or shut up.

I haven't used the term Mental Retardation to describe anyone. Suggesting that I start addressing folks with the N-word is not constructive. Toddst1 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you sure told me off. But, just to be clear, I have advised you that I will not discuss this article with you any further. So, if you continue to post any more inaccurate, disruptive, baiting nonsense, and you find that I'm not relying, feel free to characterize that as me "shutting up", if it makes you feel better. - thewolfchild 20:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(additional note);

"If you want to make accusations of administrative abuse..." - You are an admin. Whether you 'actually' use the tools or not, when you edit, you are still an admin, and as such, you are held to a higher level of conduct. You shouldn't very well be entrusted to block people for editing in the same disruptive manner you are yourself.

"I haven't used the term Mental Retardation to describe anyone." - Perhaps you should show me where I accused you of that, or strike it.

"Suggesting that I start addressing folks with the N-word is not constructive" - only shows you completely missed the point of that analogy. Beyond that, just what have you contributed here that is "constructive"? If anything, your edits have been 'de-constructive'.

Lastly, use caution with your edit summaries, these recent ones by you, directed at me, are clear and obvious personal attacks. (the very last thing an admin. should be doing). An appropriate warning has been placed on your talk page, please take heed of it. - thewolfchild 00:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Put up or shut up with your repeated accusations of WP:ADMINABUSE. If you don't want to be referred to as the child, change your name. Toddst1 (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

That's enough. Calling a colleague a child is not appropriate, whatever his user name might be. Nor is most of this thread, which has become nothing both a flame war. Please stop, both of you. Jonathunder (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)